|
On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court sought a response from Bollywood superstar Salman Khan on an application filed by producer Amit Jani, seeking a stay on the hearing of Khans suit relating to the proposed film Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy.
The application came up before Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani. Counsel for Jani submitted that similar relief had been sought in an earlier matter pending before the High Court and argued that the present proceedings should be stayed until the earlier case is decided. They have moved identical prayers in the previous suit, the counsel submitted. Senior advocate Ravi Prakash, appearing for Khan, said he would file a reply to the application. During the hearing, the Court sought clarification on the nature of the relief being sought through the application, observing, This suit was for personality rights? Prakash submitted that Khans original suit concerned protection of his personality rights and that the Court had passed an order in his favour. He further submitted that subsequently a film was announced which, according to Khans side, was based on an incident from the actors life. He said Khans side had relied on statements and interviews attributed to the producer while seeking relief in relation to the films promotional material and the proposed movie. The Court directed Khans counsel to file a reply to the producers application and listed the matter for further hearing on December 16. The dispute concerns Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy, which has been linked by the parties to the 1998 blackbuck case involving Khan. At an earlier hearing, the High Court had sought clarity on the films release. The producers counsel had submitted that the movie was not yet ready for release and would have to undergo the required certification process before a theatrical release. It was also submitted that the trailer had not been released. Khans counsel had raised the possibility of an OTT release, following which the Court also took such a possibility into consideration. Khan has raised objections to the proposed film and its promotional material, alleging that certain aspects could make him identifiable and relate to incidents associated with his life. The producer, on the other hand, has opposed the relief sought by the actor. (ANI)
|
